Slashdot Mirror
No Secret Ballot for Military Personnel?
belmolis writes "According to this editorial in today's New York Times, US military personnel for whom regular absentee ballot procedures are inconvenient are being provided with a questionable alternative, the Electronic Transmission Service, run by a private contractor, Omega Technologies. According to the NYT, the secrecy of ballots could be breached when they are faxed or emailed from the field, when they are in the hands of Omega Technologies, or when they are in the hands of local officials. The NYT was unable to obtain any information on security procedures from the company or from the Pentagon. A manual describing the system can be downloaded here [pdf document]. Like Diebold, Omega is far from non-partisan. Omega President and CEO Patricia Williams has donated $6,600 in this election cycle to the National Republican Congressional Committee and is a member of its Business Advisory Council."
here
Ballots *could* be compromised at all sorts of places along the chain. The NYT article seems to be making political hay out of the fact that there happen to be some additional points along that chain for overseas military ballots.
Ballots could be compromised by the electioneers at your local library/fire station/place of baloting-- that was never the real check. The check on ballot tampering has always been:
- statistical anomalies to spot possible tampering
- ballot counting to verify/disprove tampering.
This may seem simpleton, but it's how things have been done for the length of the republic. I don't see how adding some more stages (with the same checks at each stage) would fundamentally alter that-- unless you're a newspaper trying to raise the spectre of a rigged election 2 months before voting starts...
davejenkins.com |
There are many, many situations of this nature. See Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government
the problem is not only that secrecy can be breached, but that it will be breached. After all you have to waive your right to a secret ballot.
As if this wasn't bad enough already (though you might make an argument that it is justifiable in some extreme situations), the company that handles the ballots is far from non-partisan and there is no way to independently verify that the ballots are handled the way they should be handled.
Finally, as an outside observer, I just don't get it that after the distater of the last presidential election in Florida, that also involved problems with absentee ballots from military personal, btw., things like these are still possible in the US. I get the feeling, that either the US can't get its act together (though I think that is very unlikely), or those in charge don't want to get their act together.
US government so far didn't give any sign it would prosecute people based on their vote. The real problems, in the order importance are lack of choice (Republican vs Democratic, what if I disagree with both on different issues?), people not voting and only then mistakes in vote count.
Human rights violations with 9/11 as an excuse raise a vague concern that someday a "pro-terrorist" vote will become an issue. But as of today, anyone who is affraid of being punished for voting Democratic or Republican probably should be isolated from society because of mental instability.
This begs the question why is voting anonymous anyway? Am i somehow under threat if i vote for kerry or bush or even the communist party candidate and gasp someone finds out :o ....it seems to me that if it was simply published then we could actaully see if the sytem is fucked....ie hanging chads and all that. I think our democracy is more threatened by the possibity of faulty even intentional voteing fraud created having an anonymous voting proceedure then some proceeved unknown risk of having each vote stamped with a name.
stendec@gmail.com
Those of us who take an interest in the state of the US watch in sorrow and some concern at the rate at which your cherished rights and freedoms are being stamped on by this administration. Bush only got in after some very suspicious vote counting. The Republicans aren't too bothered what it takes to keep him there.
Fox Mulder, is that you?
Little Bricklets
The NYT editorial board sez: Omega Technologies is not an acceptable choice to run the program. Its chief executive, Patricia Williams, has donated $6,600 in this election cycle to the National Republican Congressional Committee, and serves on the committee's Business Advisory Council.
.. not the people.
Is it really so terrible to give money to a political campaign? At least one member of the family which owns the New York Times (Dr. Judith P. Sulzberger) donated $2000 to the John Kerry campaign, $5000 to 'Victory Campaign 2004', and $20000 to the Democrat National Committee.
Does this mean I can no longer trust the New York Times to treat facts with a modicum of fairness? Is it inappropriate for me to get factual information about political campaigns from them?
The NYT editors should quit their whining. Almost every person in the US has some political preferences, whether he or she has given money to a campaign or not. Having a strong political preference does not automatically make a person untrustworthy.
They should stick to criticizing the process here
First of all, it's kind of lame that the company would not give any information about its security procedures, while another source (it would seem) was readily available that details the whole thing.
Second, the Business Advisory Council is (in my opinion) a total crock of shit. I used to work for a company whose CEO won the Business Advisory Council's "Businessman of the Year" award. Let me tell you, the award is (in my opinion) pretty much given to people who donate large sums to the party. Oh did I mention that the company mentioned above is now under the control of a receiver, and is also under investigation by the IRS Criminal Investigvation Division? Oh, did I mention the grand jury preceedings? But I digress......
Remember, you cannot trust anyone, the whole damned system is corrupt, and all parts biased, one way or the other. (The "in my opinion" statements above are merely a CYA thing)
bash: rtfm: command not found
That wouldn't put a huge dent in the military, which tends to vote republican 80+ percent of the time (I saw a statistic at one time that showed military officers voted republican 8 to 1 over democrat... Here's an article about the Duke Study ).
I'd have to say from my own experience (former military officer talking here) that the percentage is probably higher than they think. I can count on one hand the number of real liberal democrats I encountered during all my years in the military.
Bush is respected by almost all the current and former US military personnel I know, in distinct contrast to Bill Clinton. When I was in the service, many officers and enlisted so despised Clinton that they refused to display any certificates, awards, decorations, citations, etc with his signature on them. Despite the prohibition on using "contemptuous words" against the commander-in-chief and elected officials, most guys were (privately) very frank about how they felt... The level of enmity was really remarkable.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
I know several people in the military, who were absolutely enraged with the last election because their absentee ballots were'nt counted. See this for example. They were far more angry that their vote was usurped, then they were concerned about someone seeing their vote.
well of course there is going to be democrats voting but to suggest the big bad evil Republicans are going to dis enfranchise a section they are going to win by a landslide anyway just doesn't add up.
-- "of course thats just my opinion, I could be wrong." --Dennis Miller
Kerry never voted against flack jackets
Everytime a story like this is posted I'm scared by the way people react.
Obviously without even bothering to read the article people tell us that everyone who is concerned about these kinds of things should take of their tin foil heads.
They tell us that 6 000$ isn't much, as if this was the point.
And they immediately start the old Democrats vs. Republicans game. For every instance of republican foul play I will post at least one instance of the democrats doing something wrong. As if it did matter who deprived voter of their basic rights.
Now take into account that this story is not the only reason to be concerned (Diebold anyone?) and what has hapend in Florida during the last Presidential election and it should be clear to anyone that there is reason to be concerned.
The moment the outcome of an election is decided not by the people voting but by judges who decide if counting the votes one side wants to count or counting the votes the other side wants to count something is wrong and needs fixing. Seeing what is happening lately in the US this situation seems far from solved, on the contrary seems to get worse.
What will happen to a country whose citizens don't seem to be concerned if their most basic right is undermined?
Here's the data:
o &c ycle=04&criteria=OMEGA+TECNOLOGIES+INCORPORATED%2F PRES
.
.L REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE - REPUBLICAN
.L REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE - REPUBLICAN
.L REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE - REPUBLICAN
.L REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE - REPUBLICAN
.com for her for any other election or candidate. Note, too, that I had to do some hunting to find this - in the database, the company name is mis-spelled "TECNOLOGIES" each time (rather strange, that). Nothing listed for '00, even though the company was founded in '91. If you go to the website, you'll see that it is not a big company, but is officially a "minority, woman-owned, small disadvantaged business." http://www.omega-its.com/about.htm If you had read even the summary carefully, let alone the editorial, you would have noticed that she's part of an advisory board - one usually doesn't do that for opposing parties.
http://www.campaignmoney.com/finance.asp?type=i
Williams, Patricia A Ms.
OMEGA TECNOLOGIES INCORPORATED/PRES
VA
600
03/04/2003
NATIONAL REPUBLICAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE - REPUBLICAN
Williams, Patricia A Ms.
OMEGA TECNOLOGIES INCORPORATED/PRES
VA
1,250
04/29/2003
NATIONA
Williams, Patricia A Ms.
Omega Tecnologies Incorporated/Pres
VA
1,000
06/27/2003
NATIONA
Williams, Patricia A Ms.
Omega Tecnologies Incorporated/Pres
VA
1,250
06/30/2003
NATIONA
Williams, Patricia A Ms.
Omega Tecnologies Incorporated/Pres
VA
1,250
07/30/2003
NATIONA
Note that it's all soft money - none directly to the candidate. That's a sign of an insider. There is nothing listed at Campaign Finance
I can't in the 10 minutes I've chosen to dedicate to research this particular one manage to find evidence that Ms. Williams is on the Business Advisory Board, but here's a description of that board:
What is the Business Advisory Council?
The Business Advisory Council is a small, prestigious group of conservative businessmen and women, who have joined with the NRCC to advocate a progressive, conservative, pro-business agenda. The Business Advisory Council allows for these individuals to pool their expertise and know-how to to bring some common business sense to Washington.
(I have to admit that I find the use of the term "progressive, conservative" hilarious, as they are by both their dictionary definitions and their historical ideological meanings antonyms.)
Let's try not to make too much of the fact that organizations outside the gov't having to do with voting (Diebold, Omega, et al) support conservatives moreso than liberals, politically.
This is largely because the right is much more pro-business and -capitalism than the left, who are typically seen to increasingly resent the wealth builders and creators with the more wealth they build and create.
If some organization seemed intent on taxing and regulating me out of business, I probably wouldn't support them much, either.
What party a business supports in a moot point, regardless. If someone is paranoid enough to have visions of conspiracy by right-supporting businesses, then the same untrustworthiness must therefore be assumed about all left-supporing organizations as well. While I don't understand paranoia all that well, maybe in the minds of those so afflicted, these two opposing conspiracies would cancel each other out...?
There's no substitute for thinking.
When you don't have choice, for example, in the way that vote is taken and passed, then that is something to worry about. Nobody forces you to buy the NYT or to watch Fox.
I live overseas and inside the envelope there is a letter that says you have the option to fax in your ballot, but you must sign the waver about the secret ballot. BUT you can mail the thing in and you have the secret option.
It's quite obvious that it's not some crazy conspiracy, if you fax in you must also incude your voter card (or else someone will do a DoS attack) The mail in letter is unique and could be easly identified as a fourge.
hmm... for fun I enjoy launching DDoS attacks against 127.87.42.5
Now go and read a book.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
BBC investigative reporter Greg Palast is one person who originally turned up the bogus use of military absentee ballots in Florida in the 2000 election.
You'd think they would have straightened it out, but as this story reports the absentee process in Florida if anything has gotten worse!
Now, four years later and the process is not fixed, and is arguably worse than ever. Accidental or planned?
So .. um .. people can't support a political party and still do their job without prejudice? I'd like to believe that at least some of us have a shred of decency. I'm curious that if intead this company's CEO had donated money to the Green Party would it have made front page news? Probably if perhaps the tinfoil hat has a hole in it ....
As the poster above has pointed out, contributors to campaigns have to identify their employers. This doesn't mean the COMPANY is involved in any way.
In this case, it looks like an individual giving money, not the corporation. Ms. Williams certainly appears to have strong political interests, but so what? The MoveOn crowd's not upset that George Soros and dozens of celebrities are deliberately using their money or public standing to stump for a candidate. How's Bruce Springsteen's political tour any different from Patricia Williams?
That's more or less how it works in Canada. By doing the counting at each individual polling place, the individual bits of paper really only matter once, and matter only in a context where their numbers are manageable. Once the numbers at a particular polling place are agreed upon by everyone who bothered to stay, then the election is merely all about insuring that those numbers are all correct all the way up the line. Heck, at that point I could even see using the Internet as a cheap and convenient means of transmitting those numbers to the state election organizing body, so long as they also get written down on paper with autographs and kept secure somewhere at the county level.
But how is your system not still an anonymous vote? Does the ballot have your name or some other piece of information traceable to you on it? Does someone watch you place the "X"? Does someone look at your completed ballot before you stuff it in the box? If the answers to all of those questions are "no," then there is no reason at all to be troubled. If the answers to any of those questions are "yes," then I'd have to wonder why that sort of thing is necessary, except for the obvious reason.
We had for many years a party called the "Progressive Conservatives". (It just disappeared via a hostile takeover from itself, but I digress from my digression). It must have meant something to the people involved, since in the east their voters dropped them like a radioactive potato when they removed progressive from their name.
I guess in this instance "progressive" was supposed to be a modifier of "conservative".From Omega careers page: Web Developer Job Description: Web developer will be responsible for the design, development and testing of cutting edge Internet based solutions. The employee will assist in needs analysis, and planning and development of implementation strategies. The development will also require evaluation of third party products/component technologies, on-site testing and installations, and testing and debugging of applications. Knowledge of C++ and Cold Fusion
Let me rephrase that... newspapers are a fundamental part of the political process, so of course they have an editorial line. But with regard to facts, they are also subject to a public fact-checking process, so any newspaper or other news source which constantly distorts the facts will quickly become known as such and lose credibility.
Omega Technologies are not subject to public fact-checking, so they should not be used.
Back in 2000 we had an election where the winner got less votes than the looser[1], yet there were no riots! I have to say that I don't see much difference.
Over here bosses are concerned about the bottom line too. However there have been instances in history where someone (normally not the boss, but some criminal who wanted his friend to be sherif) did care who was elected and was willing to use force. There have also be cases in third world countries where someone has cared enough to force people to vote their way.
Note that the vulnerabilities were are talking about are theoretical. They can happen so we want them eliminated as best we can. So far as we know these companies are not committing fraud. They could however, and we want them to have that opportunity.
[1]By a process set out 200+ years ago the popular vote is enough to win, the idea being to protect those smaller states who will have smaller populations but still have valid concerns. There is a lot of debate about if this is a good idea.
First, the technical aspects of this.. the voter secrecy parts, should be taken seriously.
Secondly.. it's kind of funny to hear complaints about them not being "non partisan".
Just about every American I know feels strongly about one party or the other, and given how US politics work, that makes sense.
Are we trying to say that those who are making voting systems and services should not be entitled to political opinion?
Of course not...
What they SHOULD have to do is keep their services as transparent and watertight as possible, open to external scrutiny, so nobody can scream "election fraud"
The people who oppose him don't generally join the Volunteer Force, though there are some exceptions.
Kerry is the subject of scorn in the USAF, in which I've served for 23+ years.
We don't need to weed out Democrats, because the only Dems who enlst are forced to do so by economic circumstance and are so uneducated or indifferent as to be politically ineffective. The rest of you despise the military, which is fine by me. You can't change what you refuse to participate in.
In other news, the sun rose in the East.
Neither Soros nor Springstein are offering "election insurance" to Bush.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Linear regression calls the election for Kerry.
Actually, the data is too unstable to suggest that linear regression could adequately predict Kerry will win. As we keep hearing, it's too close to call. But anyone believing there is an impending Bush landslide has been watching too many Fair & Balanced (TM) infomercials masquerading as Fox News.
Politically, Kerry is a strong finisher, but it's really all going to hang on the fickle mood of the American voter on 2NOV04. There will be an October Surprise (probably several) that will skew it one way or another. I do think Kerry/Edwards will have a major advantage over Bush/Cheney in the debates. Kerry and Edwards are both articulate, and the last four years have provided a lot of substantial issues to discuss. They'll do a lot better in a fact based debate instead of the emotionally charged name calling we've seen the last few months.
Most voters are already confirmed one way or another. It's the small group of undecided voters in a few undecided states that are going to decide this.
Either that, or the US Supreme Court.
:^(
>> My ultraviolent Linux switch video.
If the vast majority WILL vote Republican it is even MORE imperative the minority be protected. Which is what the article is about. A person who is a member of any minority often feels pressure to conform. As the grandparent implied - the pressure is strong to vote Republican if your vote is public and the majority around you - the people you require to be your friends if you want to survive are angry at your political beliefs.
Isn't this the very reason votes are private?
The only study quoted i.e. the "Duke Study" "Over the past quarter century, elite military officers have largely abandoned political neutrality and have become partisan Republicans," the study announced, noting that 64 percent of those surveyed identified themselves that way." All other numbers quoted in the article are opinions of people in the military that probably is more favorable to their own stereotype.
64% is a far cry from 80%, also please not this study was done before Iraq, stop-loss orders, soldiers not being paid on time, being on duty for longer tours than usual, veterans benefits being cut aswell as hazard pay and reserves/national guard being used like regular troops.
I'd imagine that this development may sway some voters.
"Nimis exaltatus rex sedet in vertice - caveat ruinam!"
No partisan interest here. It's been going on a long time: 24 wars since WW2. Creating fear so rich people can profit.
However, you seem to say that the 3 movies and 35 recently published books in this article are all wrong, even though they written by all kinds of people, Republicans, Democrats, generals, former government leaders, a Pulitzer Prize winner, political commentators, editorial writers, environmental organizations, and members of the public: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government.
Name ONE statement that is in error. I'll investigate (again), and if you are correct, I will change it.
Most people don't know that the situation in Iraq began in the 50's, when hidden elements of the U.S. government overthrew a democratically elected president of Iran (Mossadegh) because he wanted to reduce the profits of U.S. and British oil companies doing business in Iran. The U.S. government supported a very weak man, the Shah of Iran, who became very violent toward his own citizens. Eventually, people in Iran overthrew the Shah. The U.S. government's actions de-stabilized the country and encouraged the violence that came after. The U.S. government supported Iraq against Iran, supplying weapons to Saddam Hussein at a very high profit for the rich owners of U.S. weapons companies. The Bush family has long owned part of a company that owns weapons companies. Cheney was head of Halliburton, a company that profits when there is war, especially since Halliburton was able to arrange a secret, no competitive bid contract.
What do you say about that? Is the university that hosts the documents all wrong?
Obviously, there is too much material for any one article. Should I not discuss the corruption of today because there was corruption in the past?
Actually I've discussed the question with a few military people, and none planned to vote for Bush. Indeed, one Army officer pointed out to me that, given the "backdoor draft" going on, members of the Guard and Reserves "would be idiots" (his words) to vote for Bush. (Of course, I live in a pretty solid "blue" state.)
Right, I'm going to take the word of an Anonymous Coward on this. As if all the bombing and shooting was actually just an old Iraqi way of greating visitors.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Okay, so Patricia Williams President and CEO of Omega Technologies is a republican supporter. Are you saying that this makes her a criminal willing to commit voter fraud? I think this is a huge leap. First she would have to decide that democracy is ridiculous and the people should not pick their leader, that the leader should be chosen for the people. Secondly, she would have to decide to risk going to jail and having her business destroyed to disenfranchise soldiers that are dying for this country. Thirdly, she would have to somehow do this without any of the people who work for Omega Technologies blowing the whistle. I don't know Patricia Williams. Do you have any proof she is willing to commit the criminal acts that are being assumed she will commit?
You missed the point. She's operating under conflict of interest. The money and her position with the Republicans is only supporting evidence.
--
Bush's education improvements were fraud
Why didn't a Kerry supporter donate $7000 to get the job?
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
I'm just a Brit - Watching from overseas, looking at the US through the eyes of the internet. Of course, this means I don't see it through the eyes of big-media, aside from prehaps the BBC once in a while, and if I remember - the channel 4 news occasionally.
So from where I am looking, I see peoples rights being taken away daily, contradictions in every-day aspects of American life, conflicts of interest and unacceptable terms lain down in everything from voting to laws. And I have to ask - why is nothing being done about it?
Really... I'm not trolling, or trying to 'diss' America. I used to love the idea of coming over to live in America, it was one of my childhood dreams - land of the free - these days, I'm far too concerned about the state of democracy over there. And yet I see almost nothing being done about it.
Over here, if we stood up on the news and said 'There is a clear conflict of interest, due to the link between the companys doing the voting machines, and the current prime minister' - I honestly believe something would be done about it, and very quickly. And for people to be arrested for simply protesting, on the scale/obsurdity that appears to be happening over there, would provoke outrage, and instant responses - along with extreme critisism, both from the media, and the opposition party.
So how to finish up this post? Good question - It's just as much a rant on 'why is america not doing something?' as 'why is this happening in the first place?', and voting is only a small part of what seems to be an institutional corruption. I can only hope that at some point in the future, a president will have the foresight to look forward and put in place, restrictions and clauses to further protect the American people. Your constitution is apparently no longer up to the job, and your democracy has been truely corrupted. (This is not a troll/flamebait post)
...but that's nothing to be embarrassed about, ignorance is curable.
The "McCarthy witch hunts" were NOT witch hunts (read the end). McCarthy's basic argument was "should we have people who are communists (many self admitted) in sensitive positions within our government?"
He was not only right, but underestimated the extent of soviet infiltration, as the release of the Venona Project transcripts now reveal (summary here).
Now go and read a book.
A sad trend in the US for the last couple of decades has been that of "those who know better, do nothing". Or more recently, "those who know better do nothing but bitch on the internet"
Obviously, voting is something that should be left in the hands of the people and not some corporation with who knows what agenda.
But where are the volunteers to step up and implement and open and robust voting system?
Of all the people here who bitch about "our rights being thrown away" - how many of them have even volunteered to work in a polling place, much less talked with their state's election board members?
The boards know that all these systems SUCK! But nobody has tried to give them a reasonable alternative.
Rather than bitch on the internet, why doesn't anyone here, with the expertise and obsessive desire for openness, do something about it?
Our rights are being thrown away because you're too lazy to get out of your chair and stop it. Join an activist organization. Lobby your congresspeople. Make a nuisance of yourself with them!
Moaning on the internet does nothing.
-
No, instead Bush deserted the military for over a year. He then went on to earn the recognition of a drunk driving conviction. Next he would found an oil company which did business with the Bin Laden family. In August of 2001 he would ignore a daily briefing pointing out that one of the Bin Ladens was planning to highjack airplanes and fly them into American building. When it finally happens, over a month later, upon being informed of most devestating attack by foreign forces on the U.S. mainland, Bush sits there for. He just sits there. For 7 and a half minutes. He just sits there. He doesn't call out the Air Force. He doesn't authorize shooting down the enemy. He just sits there. In recent times he has entered the United States of America into a war of choice against the nation of Iraq. This war of choice has a main beneficiary: Dick Cheney's Halliburton Corporation. Cheney's Halliburton Corp. has taken over $17 Billion dollars in no-bid contracts and counting. This is U.S. taxpayer money Bush is shuttling into a private corporation without any oversight. Speaking of taxes, I love a guy who can give the majority of his tax cuts to the richest 1% of Americans (people who make over $250,000 every year) while cutting funding to schooling, healthcare, social security, the environment, scientific research, and military pay.
Nobody ever said all Arabs hate the US - except the rightwing Christian military guy that got in hot water for declaring the Muslims were agents of Satan. Oh, and most of the rightwing so-called pundits and the neocons. You don't remember, "They hate us for our freedom?"
What they hate is George Bush and his policies.
As for the Demos wanting us all terrified, that is undoubtedly true - they're politicians after all.
However, it is DOUBLY TRUE for the Republicans who started this shit.
It was a REPUBLICAN administration who ALLOWED (and possibly orchestrated) the 9/11 attack on this country and then squandered ALL of the goodwill from the rest of the world that followed it.
Kerry may be no better than Bush, but I doubt he could be worse. I could be wrong about that last, however.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
As for Bush, he's certainly responsible for far more members of the American military dying in an unnecessary war that was waged based on a pack of lies. He not only ditched military service himself, but for almost a year after starting the Iraq war he refused to visit the families of soldiers who died in his war. He's been slashing benefits to Veterans, and he even took money that several US veterans had won in a lawsuit against Saddam Hussein for stuff that happened during Desert Storm -- the money should have been paid to the vets and their families, and Bush instead diverted it to the Iraqi "reconstruction." Bush has been slapping the face of American troops and veterans over and over again. It is disgraceful and insulting to those who risk their lives to serve their country. His attempt to paint Kerry as a wimp is a further slap in the face to everyone who has ever served in the military.